Getting into GFX at last - a GFX 100 (original) - tips?

[GeoffHarris]

As a tripod camera, I much prefer the original GFX 100 to my GFX 100 II body, by the way. I’ve thought about picking up a 2nd one if I could find an absolutely mint one.

I meant to follow up on this, and then forgot to ask. What did you mean by it?... Until now I'd tended to assume that the mark 2 was the "unambiguously better everything" successor to the mark 1 - that I would prefer it if I could easily afford either, but that I would hopefully be satisfied enough with the mark 1 given my budget. I hadn't imagined there'd be any metric or way of looking at the original 100 that makes it preferable to the mark 2.

I know the mark 1 has the built in battery grip. But you can get a grip for the mark 2, albeit as an eyewateringly expensive optional extra. I assume it takes an L bracket just as well, with or without the grip attached?

It has the same screen, a lesser (albeit good) viewfinder with the same tilt options and (I think?) less eye relief... it may focus less well in low-light studios, even for unchallenging still-life subjects... people say the buttons on the original 100 are a bit strange and small (and their layout/feel is inconsistent in the vertical grip vs the horizontal versions of the same button)... I had thought I'd prefer the buttons on the II, all else being equal...

(again, none of these things are to slam the mark 1, they're all still above a pretty decent quality level in absolute terms and I intend/hope to be happy enough with mine)...

And I mean, sure, for tripod shots it's often not worse, in lots of ways that count, but...

Where's the advantage to the mk1 over the mk2 for tripod shooting? Genuinely interested. Might it be to do with placement of cables like the remote-release socket?

None of this is super-important - I'm just spinning my wheels while waiting impatiently to get the camera in my hands! Hope I can start to post something more concrete, soon.

 

[dbateman]

As a tripod camera, I much prefer the original GFX 100 to my GFX 100 II body, by the way. I’ve thought about picking up a 2nd one if I could find an absolutely mint one.

I meant to follow up on this, and then forgot to ask. What did you mean by it?... Until now I'd tended to assume that the mark 2 was the "unambiguously better everything" successor to the mark 1 - that I would prefer it if I could easily afford either, but that I would hopefully be satisfied enough with the mark 1 given my budget. I hadn't imagined there'd be any metric or way of looking at the original 100 that makes it preferable to the mark 2.

I know the mark 1 has the built in battery grip. But you can get a grip for the mark 2, albeit as an eyewateringly expensive optional extra. I assume it takes an L bracket just as well, with or without the grip attached?

It has the same screen, a lesser (albeit good) viewfinder with the same tilt options and (I think?) less eye relief... it may focus less well in low-light studios, even for unchallenging still-life subjects... people say the buttons on the original 100 are a bit strange and small (and their layout/feel is inconsistent in the vertical grip vs the horizontal versions of the same button)... I had thought I'd prefer the buttons on the II, all else being equal...

(again, none of these things are to slam the mark 1, they're all still above a pretty decent quality level in absolute terms and I intend/hope to be happy enough with mine)...

And I mean, sure, for tripod shots it's often not worse, in lots of ways that count, but...

Where's the advantage to the mk1 over the mk2 for tripod shooting? Genuinely interested. Might it be to do with placement of cables like the remote-release socket?

None of this is super-important - I'm just spinning my wheels while waiting impatiently to get the camera in my hands! Hope I can start to post something more concrete, soon.

Cord management on the mk1 is better than the mk2.

If you attach a shutter release cord, its out of the way on the mk1. The mk2 you need to expose all the ports to the elements.

 

[Rand 47]

As a tripod camera, I much prefer the original GFX 100 to my GFX 100 II body, by the way. I’ve thought about picking up a 2nd one if I could find an absolutely mint one.

I meant to follow up on this, and then forgot to ask. What did you mean by it?... Until now I'd tended to assume that the mark 2 was the "unambiguously better everything" successor to the mark 1 - that I would prefer it if I could easily afford either, but that I would hopefully be satisfied enough with the mark 1 given my budget. I hadn't imagined there'd be any metric or way of looking at the original 100 that makes it preferable to the mark 2.

I know the mark 1 has the built in battery grip. But you can get a grip for the mark 2, albeit as an eyewateringly expensive optional extra. I assume it takes an L bracket just as well, with or without the grip attached?

It has the same screen, a lesser (albeit good) viewfinder with the same tilt options and (I think?) less eye relief... it may focus less well in low-light studios, even for unchallenging still-life subjects... people say the buttons on the original 100 are a bit strange and small (and their layout/feel is inconsistent in the vertical grip vs the horizontal versions of the same button)... I had thought I'd prefer the buttons on the II, all else being equal...

(again, none of these things are to slam the mark 1, they're all still above a pretty decent quality level in absolute terms and I intend/hope to be happy enough with mine)...

And I mean, sure, for tripod shots it's often not worse, in lots of ways that count, but...

Where's the advantage to the mk1 over the mk2 for tripod shooting? Genuinely interested. Might it be to do with placement of cables like the remote-release socket?

None of this is super-important - I'm just spinning my wheels while waiting impatiently to get the camera in my hands! Hope I can start to post something more concrete, soon.

This, quite obviously, is pure “preference,” but here’s my thinking:

• If one wants a vertical grip, there is no substitute for one that is integral. The one on my GFX 100 II is nice, but it doesn’t have the same sense / feel of solidity. Like all add on vertical grips, they tend to loosen up a bit over time “on their own.” No bueno.
• The rear sub-monitor LCD that allows configuration to display items of information is a huge deal. I’m often working with the camera fairly high on the tripod, and even with the slanted top plate of the “II” camera it’s impossible to read the info. The sub monitor LCD can have my essential shooting information w/o anything cluttering the main LCD. It’s a bigger deal in practice out in the field that it seems it would be in just describing it.
• The remote release port on the original is 2.5mm and is on the right side of the body near the card access door. It is fully accessible with the L-Plate attached. This is VASTLY superior to the “II’s” 3.5mm plug, trapped under a door on the left side of the body, that is blocked by any L-plate. Besides which it shares duty as a headphone jack and requires a pig-tail to get from 3.5mm to 2.5mm which is the de facto standard for remote releases. This is just stupid on Fuji’s part. I know the phone app “works” but is a cluge in comparison. Whoever Fuji designed the “II” for, it wasn’t people working in the field on tripods.
• I like the way “Stills / Muli” rotating switch works on the original. It’s easy to change by feel.
• I like the battery tray of the original. Swapping out batteries is a breeze. The “II” can have two batteries in the grip, but still has one in the body. More of a pain in the butt to keep them charged. Grip on, grip off. I found I can just run the two batteries in the grip w/o one in the body, but you can’t update firmware unless there’s one in the body. Very weird.
• I prefer the older style joy-stick that was very responsive. The new “warted mushroom” design is inferior and actually more difficult to use, to my way of thinking. The old one is even better with gloves on.
• The “space age” texture on the “II” is cool looking, but the original leather-feeling material of the GFX 100 is much better “in hand.” Just a preference thing and certainly not any kind of deal breaker.
• In combination with the original Really Right Stuff L-plate (an absolutely brilliant design that captures the camera body at two points, and is one very solid piece - not bolted together) the original GFX 100 is a joy to use on tripod, or hand held since the RRS plate compensates perfectly for the very odd vertical grip design of the body.
• One typical complaint about the original, the too generous spacing between buttons, is actually something I prefer. Better w/ gloves on. The one real “bummer” about the original is the way the rear command dial / wheel is too easy to “press as a button” when one is trying to use it as a “wheel.” I agree with this, but have learned to compensate by just being careful.
• Last, and silly…. (I fully admit) I love the odd blue/black color of the original.

As a result, I’ll typically reach for the original GFX 100, over my “II” most of the time.

Rand

 

[GeoffHarris]

Thanks, really interesting. Much as you downplay many of your points as subjective, I think it all makes a lot of sense and adds up to a strong argument.

I am fortunate to have rather large hands so I feel lucky that the big open spaces, large grip, and wide button placement on the 100 are no problem, or even desirable, for me. It'll certainly be a culture-shock and a welcome contrast, coming from gen 2 and 3 Sony bodies!

I hadn't considered the gradual-wobble-factor on detachable grips. And the battery-swapping oddity. And I keep forgetting that the mini lower display is there, and underestimating how useful it might turn out to be. Great points.

I had no idea the joystick would be preferable on the original 100. I'd assumed from what little I'd heard that the joysticks on GFX bodies were all a bit rubbishy to work with but I'll be glad to have a better one rather than a worse one (and it's confusing to me that Fuji don't add a D-Pad/wheel like my Sonys or the old 50S, too, given all the empty body real-estate... but I assume it must have something to do with structural reasons, or something that needs the space for the buttons' roots more, under the hood of the camera).

I was grateful for the recommendation of the RRS bracket earlier in the thread and the link to a rare example for sale. I nearly bought it, then realised it was just too much of a stretch of my remaining budget at this time... soon afterwards, understandably, someone else snapped it up - and good luck to them! I will get by with the Leofoto, Smallrig-style knockoff, which appears to do the same ergo-improvement for the vertical grip... but will certainly not be as polished, only has one attachment point (which is a shame, on a big heavy body) and comes in two pieces where maybe the join between them will eventually be a weak spot, we'll see. It appears to permit battery access while mounted, and has a lot of additional screw mounting points on it that the RRS doesn't, which may occasionally come in handy to me, so I'm trying to see the bright side. For example, currently I'm pipe-dreaming an intention not just to take and share test images of how my lenses adapt to the Fuji, but also to take video footage of what the camera sees while I shoot some autofocus tests - to show to anyone who might be interested how well or not-well, how fast and reliably or otherwise, the eye focussing functions work on my very-shallow-DoF Fringer-adapted lenses, with or without left/right-eye-priority tricks (and how quickly, for example, can one switch which eye to tell the camera to prioritise? How deep must one menu-dive, is there a user-definable one-button-press left-right eye toggle (I bet not, that'd be far too sensible!))... or how well alternative focus methods (such as targeted single af-point placement) really practically work for shooting semi-slightly-posed people shots. To do that, I would mount a CineEye wireless video broadcaster next to the camera and then record exactly what the camera sees onto my phone. Such widgets can be mounted on the hot shoe on top of the viewfinder, but I'd rather not pile a lot of weight and flex on top there when not necessary, given the whole pivoting finder functionality I like so much being (???) a potential stress point. Mounting the CineEye on the L-bracket's screw holes will do nicely.

But yeah I'd still rather have the RRS of course and I don't dispute its quality. This'll do for now, I hope.

 

[Mikhail Kartashov]

Welcome to the world of GFX+Canon ef lenses! I personally think it's one of the reasons to get into the system (nikon and sigma lenses welcome, of course too) for those who value overall image, rather than minute and rarely visible resolution advantage. Plus the mentioned 3:4 ratio, of course.

The bokeh difference and nicer FL from moderate to longer telephoto are great. Wasn't a big fan of 85L on FF, but it got new life on my gfx. My all time favorite 200f2 is even better on gfx.

As for the color I'll be the one who... really didn't like Fuji magenta tint out of the box, seemingly ruining pure and impacting reds (Go Big Red!). Capture one's color profile fixed it and now it's all good.

The electronic shutter left without paying attention to it is terrible. Particularly if 16 bit mode is enabled. Since I have f1.2 and f2 lenses, and my settings are auto (for it to go beyond 1/8000 - limit of my 5d3), pics can be completely screwed up. Beware.

Good luck and awesome images!

 

[GeoffHarris]

Great points, and it's reassuring to see someone has thought and acted on similar lines to my own.

Yes, I often end up over 1/4000 when I am shooting with f/1.8 on my effortlessly-fast (but 3:2 and low res) old stacked, electronic-shuttered Sony a9, so with the Sigma 135 and the Canon 200 f/1.8 it will sometimes be an issue I'll have to be careful about on GFX. The readout speed alone is not so particularly my concern - I am mostly shooting people, non-sports, posing statically or doing light flow-posing at worst... though I'll try to not be wobbling too hard left/right when I'm shooting on monopod, in case that shows up in distortion from the slow-readout exposure... nah, what concerns me most, I think, is the reported large additional shutter lag (the camera doesn't shoot until quite a while after you tell it to) that the old review-link I shared on the previous page reported for the GFX 100, when electronic shutter is in use (edit: here it is again https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/fuji-gfx-100/fuji-gfx-100A6.HTM ). That may sometimes cause me to miss a moment or a perfect instant of a pose. We'll see.

Being electronic-shutter-trolled by this system may force me into the, uh, unbearable hardship of shooting all the more with my 400mm f/2.8. Because it's 2.8 at its maximum, it at least probably won't go over 1/4000 a lot. I'll just have to grin and bear the amazing perspective and background it provides! I would welcome this manner of suffering (I really hope the lens turns out to work well... can't wait to test it)

As a user with similar gear to mine, I'd welcome any thoughts and insights you have on how you get your most satisfying results regarding autofocus. Depth of field is very narrow with these lenses, and correct focus is rather all-or-nothing, so I am really hoping Fuji adapts as well as I hope (and eye-focusses more consistently and accurately than I've feared). Are you using a gen-1 body, or a GFX 100 II / SII? Can't blame you if you're using the newer body, I'm sure it makes life considerably easier, but on my budget I'll have to make do and make the most of any tricks and ways of working I can.

I'll be avoiding 16-bit mode like the plague. I understand the explanations and demonstrations that Jim Kasson has very helpfully shared here on this forum and on his blog of how, practically and honestly, it offers no benefit at all, so I'm happy to live without its uncompensated downsides. But thank you for emphasising that just in case, as I know many people all over the web still witter on about 16-bit, as some kind of killer feature, without knowing that it isn't really doing anything of value over 14-bit. Even a real and genuine 14 bit is going to be an upgrade for me vs something like my old a9, that was, if I recall correctly, practically only a 12-bit camera and only had limited dynamic range at the best of times.

 

[Mikhail Kartashov]

I have a 100 II body, with the Fringer adapter. That was not an easy purchase. However, later I realized I could have bought it for exactly the same money earlier, thus having more great pictures taken. Oh, well.

The AF is definitely not perfect, but has surprised me both with speed (24-70/2.8 II and 50/1.2) and precision (85/1.2 II).

Getting used to front-right customizable buttons (I jokingly call them made for lizard-clawed people, since I can not comfortably single-handedly hold the camera and use it at the same time) as for quickly adjusting AF modes is, perhaps, the most useful course of action. Sometimes the mode just doesn't align with the view of the face(s) and has to be switched. The presence of various animal AF modes makes me grin every time I cycle through them.

There's definitely a selection to be made for sensitivity and speed of tracking, but that mostly concerns with video (which I enjoy shooting, but rather infrequently).

50L+85L

https://kartashovphoto.com/gallery/2025/2025_05_14_Lincoln_UNL_Campus_Sanda_Masic_Graduation/?&entry=GALLERY&page=GALLERY

200f2L+85L

https://kartashovphoto.com/gallery/2025/2025_05_24_Lincoln_Roca_Kweku_Ama_Wedding/?&entry=GALLERY&page=GALLERY

 

[GeoffHarris]

Thanks very much for sharing your galleries. Your 200 f/2 adapts superbly and inspiringly well... and I really like the colour output you've produced, which has a pleasantly subtle "Fuji" character without any of the (to my taste) over-the-top "look ma, I'm a film preset!" stylised tones I've feared, from seeing some other online sample Fuji images.

Minor bokeh-ball cutoffs in image corners (such as in this image - https://kartashovphoto.com/gallery/...Ama_Wedding/GOOD_Events_Weddings/DSCF2791.jpg ) are of only purely technical interest - I'm sure it's only a photographer that spots them, rather than a client. I suspect that lens-adaptation itself may be the source of it, perhaps - slight cutoff from the geometry of the adapter, somehow - as I've seem something slightly similar, though to a lesser extent, on edge-of-frame when shooting Sony with the MC-11 on my Canon 200 f/1.8. The MC-11 has a minimum-diameter, rectangular shape on its insides (presumably for stray-light control/contrast?) which I assumed was somehow contributing to the edge-of-frame bokeh-ball cutoff... if not the narrow E-mount diameter, too. Anyway, as and when I do some tests and report back I'll try to remember to look for and point out the same on my new-old Fuji setup. The character and look from your adapted 200 is very admirable. Definitely a bit more modern and clean-cut than my older f/1.8 model.

I completely sympathise with your point of view on the cost of purchasing the 100 II. It really has only barely come down in price, if at all, in nearly two years, now... and only then via the used or grey market where there is some scarcity of supply. And the really special images, that just don't get taken while you're waiting for a particular price point, are hard to understate the value of. I think you made a good choice. I just can't afford to emulate you, regardless of the wisdom of it.

Fujis do depreciate dramatically, eventually - just look at the original 100. But not until something succeeds them. And maybe the 100 II won't come down in price in the same way the 100 has, even then, since it is a smaller body with a performance/speed/autofocus level above a certain highly desirable and enabling threshold - whereas the original 100's size seems to be considered a dealbreaker by many potential Fuji users (to my benefit). I just can't afford the mark 2, no matter how much sense it makes... but from an AF aspect alone/overwhelmingly, regardless of anything else, I am certain I would have preferred it and that it would've suited me better. I'll have to just take shelter from the long, protracted siege on the II's market value with my humble little ( ) mark 1, which I think has depreciated almost as much as it ever will... until eventually the mark II comes down in price, too, to a level I can stretch for. The value of the II's autofocus, buffer depth and responsiveness for the event photography you've demonstrated in those galleries is undisputable. My intended shooting subjects are slightly less dynamic - somewhat more posed and slow - so I am just hoping that I'll get by okay...! I don't mind "slow" too much, as long as the focus is truly accurate. Ah, if only. But I am not sure the 100's eye autofocus will be truly accurate and consistent. Much has been said online about the earlier Fuji GFX generations' tendency to produce false-positives - to claim they're focussed on the eye, and then, later, you notice they weren't - when eye autofocus mode is engaged. I'm apprehensive about that, and looking for the best tricks and methods to minimise any missed shots by whatever means, and will report back on my experience. Hoping to be positively, rather than negatively, surprised. I'd be very glad to eat my words and turn out to be mistaken on my apprehensions.

 

[John Hollenberg]

I was grateful for the recommendation of the RRS bracket earlier in the thread and the link to a rare example for sale. I nearly bought it, then realised it was just too much of a stretch of my remaining budget at this time... soon afterwards, understandably, someone else snapped it up - and good luck to them!

Turns out you dodged a bullet. Since you had posted that you went with another L-Plate I felt free to buy it. However, it turns out that the L-plate is missing a crucial component (a small plate and screw) that attaches it firmly to the side of the camera. I found out about the missing piece just in time and canceled the order.

 

[GeoffHarris]

I was grateful for the recommendation of the RRS bracket earlier in the thread and the link to a rare example for sale. I nearly bought it, then realised it was just too much of a stretch of my remaining budget at this time... soon afterwards, understandably, someone else snapped it up - and good luck to them!

Turns out you dodged a bullet. Since you had posted that you went with another L-Plate I felt free to buy it. However, it turns out that the L-plate is missing a crucial component (a small plate and screw) that attaches it firmly to the side of the camera. I found out about the missing piece just in time and canceled the order.

Ah, I'm very sorry to hear that. It did look like a remarkably good deal and it's a shame it wasn't in complete condition. I was lucky to miss it - with shipping times to Europe, import taxes and everything I'd have been stung quite a bit by the false hope/disappointment when it arrived.